I have read many posts including this forum,many of you focus on progressions or in other words how much to bet, a betting sequence which usually is "negative".This fact alone means 2 things in my point of view:

1) No matter how much you are willing to risk, it's NOT going to happen because if you can't win with flat bets,most probably you won't win with any kind of progression, you only prolonging the unavoidable...

2) Increasing bets after losing results it's a very BAD timing...and after all gambling is all about timing!Think about it for a moment, all events are certain to occur after some time, but what separates winners from losers is the timing and NOT how much money you are willing to risk.

Too much emphasis for a secondary gambling element, the money management and the progression of the bets, without ever considering two crucial elements; When and Where

By betting 1 Euro or 1 million of Euros in a single bet, actually you are NOT changing the odds,money alone dictates only how much you could win or lose any given moment, what makes you winner or loser is NOT being determined by the money factor, but by Where and When.

So in my point of view is futile to discuss about progressions, there are plenty of systems and/or methods out there which their only concern is about how much someone has to bet and with a specific sequence, usually after losing,thus negative and I believe there is very good reason to call this kind of progressions this way (negative).

Another negative element of the "negative" progressions is that are NOT realistic...Let me explain you what I mean, let's say you start betting and you win a few bets and eventually you find yourself in what we call a string of unfortunate results or a losing streak if you prefer.Then you raise your bets gradually, no matter how much aggressively or conservatively, trying to overcome the losing streak but you don't appreciate your past wins,no matter how many before you find yourself in the uncomfortable position of a losing streak.

A realistic approach would be to predetermine a very doable MINIMUM winning margin...For example,I expect to win 30 bets out of 100,if the results would be better than this then even better!By saying 30 out of 100 results, does NOT indicates with which turn,sequence this thirty wins are going to occur within 100 outcomes.

This is the point where almost all of the negative progressions fail, because you are disregarding the previous wins instead of considering the totality of the results as a whole...

What if there was a progression which could be applied on any bet section of the table and/or wheel layout,by predetermine the minimum expectation according the probability and deviation of the particular section?Would that be interesting?

I would like to present you an example;Let's say I'm fond of the so called "outside bets" and I choose Red because it's my favorite color.My minimum expectation is to win 30 bets out of 100,would that be realistic,what do you think?

As you might have noticed,the lowest bankroll reached -410 followed by 35 bet, this indicates that roughly 500 units bankroll would be sufficient for such session.Also worthwhile to notice that the highest bet was 90 just before the last win/result.This was an example of 77 outcomes from which 30 have came our way and 47 loses.It's not the easiest session you may encounter,isn't it?Yet again,the progression formula managed to gain the upper hand even after much more negative results and two looooong losing streaks of 15 and 20.

However, there is an "Achilles heel" to this progression and this is the last bets...the more you approach towards the minimum expectation goal, the more vulnerable you become because the bets have to raise in order to achieve an overall profit within the minimum expectation (winning margin)

The progression formula is:negative balance (if any) divided by minimum expectation (winning margin) divided by odds payout, equals with the next bet on the progression

In the above example, the formula would be:balance / 30 / 1 (1 to 1 odds payout)You could implement the same progression formula for every bet section of the table and/or wheel layout.

There is an extra, optional condition you may consider to apply in order to avoid dramatically increasing the bets if you ever encounter many loses near the end of the minimum expectation goal, this is to stop betting after one loss and wait for just 1 virtual win,whenever happens,then you would continue where you left off immediately after the virtual win.You might think that this way is missing every first win after each losing streak,but what you are saving is much more than just missing one win because there are MANY losing streaks of 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10...etc

As my closing point, I'd like to remind you the way I open this thread;No matter how much,nor the progression you are using, could make you winner if you don't have a method to determine WHERE and WHEN to bet!

Each and every random spin is independent of all other spins in the past, present and future anywhere in the World.We find it difficult, however, to transcend time and Space. So we´ll think in terms of WHERE and WHEN. If we are LUCKY, we´ll hit the right moment at the right roulette table. Knowing when to start and when to leave is crucial. But the winner wants to win a little more. And the loser wants to win back what he just lost - and I agree that NEGATIVE PROGRESSIONS is not the best way.

An alternative to negative progression or flat betting could be POSITIVE PROGRESSIONS.With the well known "PAROLI" (the opposite of Martingale) every hit (on even chances) means "double up" on the table. But we never know when to stop, do we? Paroli requires nerves of steel.My solution to this problem is wagering RED & EVEN at the same time - and only double up after winning both at the same time. In all other cases I start anew. With this procedure we´ll step down from the paroli without losing all (losing here and winning there) in most cases. In a relaxed way. Without too much stress or too much calculating

Each and every random spin is independent of all other spins in the past, present and future anywhere in the World.We find it difficult, however, to transcend time and Space. So we´ll think in terms of WHERE and WHEN. If we are LUCKY, we´ll hit the right moment at the right roulette table. Knowing when to start and when to leave is crucial. But the winner wants to win a little more. And the loser wants to win back what he just lost - and I agree that NEGATIVE PROGRESSIONS is not the best way.

An alternative to negative progression or flat betting could be POSITIVE PROGRESSIONS.With the well known "PAROLI" (the opposite of Martingale) every hit (on even chances) means "double up" on the table. But we never know when to stop, do we? Paroli requires nerves of steel.My solution to this problem is wagering RED & EVEN at the same time - and only double up after winning both at the same time. In all other cases I start anew. With this procedure we´ll step down from the paroli without losing all (losing here and winning there) in most cases. In a relaxed way. Without too much stress or too much calculating

The answer to this is in the fact that in turning the pocket inside out, you have to turn the ENTIRE pocket inside out. So when you were playing a neg progression normally you try to win 1 unit.With a pos progression you lose 1 unit. Then playing into a pos progression you are doing one oftwo things.

1) You are trying to achieve a profit level that gets back all your 1 unit losses plus 1 unit or2) You might keep track of how many 1 unit losses you have and make that total your wingoal, thereby ending a session with an actual profit mark based on your extent of play.

If you choose #1 it is a slow burn to any profit.

Say you had a den progression. You win a bunch of 1 unit bets. +10 units? +20 units?

And then that bad run occurs and you QUICKLY exceed that profit. You gave it back so farin the progression. Well with the opposite of up as you win, you might be behind that muchAnd then the tide turns for you and that progression grows and you get back those unitsplus your profit.

From my mental thinking, a fib might not be a bad place to start. With the pos progression.Cause it's jagged and not just clean exchange of units on win/losses.

Progression is a power tool. You don't mess around with power tools as with a toy. You use them with precision and purpose. A properly applied progression will FORCE a roulette wheel to pay you money because at certain times the wheel must pay out, it cannot help itself.

I can't necessarily say I recommend this system but it is the most ingenious semi-continuous use of progression that I have ever experienced. All other such progressions pale in the applied intelligence of this system.

Now, everyone knows that Silverthorne has done nothing put peddle bad roulette systems for decades. However, I believe that this is the one time where he was telling the actual truth and actually found a system designed by someone else in the 1800's that actually DOES work; its my opinion that he wishes he could design systems this good. Stay away from the Fisher II, that's him messing with a good thing.

Ok since the download link is down, I will just summarize the system here. At least try it out for awhile. I find it quite ingenious (and quite unlike Silverthorne).

1) Bet 1 unit Red or Black based on the last decision; if the wheel drops red, bet red, black bet black, green bet same color as last spin.

2) When you FIRST experience a loss, write down two 1 digits (1 1) on a piece of paper and switch colors.

3) Follow the betting pattern betting 1 unit until you experience your first win (GENIUS!) but every time you experience a loss add ONE other digit 1 (1) to your paper; e.g. you bet black but it fell red. You write down (1 1) and bet red 1 unit but it falls green. You write an extra "1" and so you now have (1 1 1) on the paper and will bet red 1 unit & if you lose you will write (1 1 1 1).

4) On your first win (one unit) you will cross off the 1 to the farthest left. So you will have (1 1 1). Once you have your first win, you will always follow the bets suggested by the paper (see below) until you clear all numbers which is called a "coup" and generates 1 unit profit.

5) Bet the number of units indicated by the paper running up to 3 places from left to right. So in the above case, you will bet 2 units on red.

6) Place losses to the rght, cross wins off from the left. So if you lose the 2 unit bet above you will write the digit 2 to the right on your paper (1 1 2). If you win the bet you will cross off 2 units on the paper like so (1 1). On the loss, you will switch to black and bet FOUR units (3 places from left to right totals 4). If you lose it will appear thus (1 1 2 4). If you win it will produce (1 1 2). On the loss you will switch to red and bet FOUR units again because only 3 places are bet at one time (GENIUS!).

7) Once all numbers are clear, return to betting 1 unit until your first loss (remember, always START OUT with two digit 1's (1 1) for your first loss).

8] If your numbers reach the table limits (VERY RARE) split the numbers in two or three. So, if you have 256 256 & you can't bet 512, simply split the 256's into 4 sections of 128 & thus bet 384 (128x3).

This system MUST win like the Martingale except it rarely encounters (and is not hampered by) table limits and withstands MANY times more the losses without the massive increases in bet amounts.

It gives the player the edge because of the formula: W= (L+3)/3 where W=wins and L = losses; meaning that it knocks out 3 losses for every single bet (3:1). If you know that the Martingale is genius then you should discover that this system is a much more effective and deeper form of that genius.

Its ONLY weakness is the player bankroll and of course as usual, Silverthorne got it wrong with his bankroll suggestions. I recommend at least 1000 units but you will very rarely if ever need them all.

I use this in a real online casino to rake in regular 20 unit profits per session, multiple times per day. With the proper bankroll, it is risk free.

The only reason I cannot flat out recommend this system is because Silverthorne is untrustworthy and I have not yet figured out where the actual bankroll limits fall.

Ok, I finally did it. I put the Fisher into a computer simulation (not so simple).

Here is my preliminary data:

As you might expect, the Fisher won every time.

However, the maximum bet that occurred was: 6,635,520.

The bet distributions were as follows with 16,793,152 total bets placed:

1.6777220E+07 under 1000 bet amount .99905%

7901 under 2000 0.00047%

2719 under 3000 0.00016%

1586 under 4000 0.000094%

938 under 5000 0.000055%

3628 over 5000 0.00021%

So 99.9905% of the time the bet amount will never reach 1000 (which is my experience).

I wonder how much I need to be worried about the other 0.09487200496964% of the time...

Having a bankroll of 5000 units would work better than a two pairs of depends on a 120 year old.

If I really want to analyze this, I would output the 3500+ games that produced those larger bets and analyze them for characteristics that can be recognized ahead of time and are sufficiently rare so as to allow a profit if we stop out when seeing them.

Ok, I finally did it. I put the Fisher into a computer simulation (not so simple).

Here is my preliminary data:

As you might expect, the Fisher won every time.

However, the maximum bet that occurred was: 6,635,520.

The bet distributions were as follows with 16,793,152 total bets placed:

1.6777220E+07 under 1000 bet amount .99905%

7901 under 2000 0.00047%

2719 under 3000 0.00016%

1586 under 4000 0.000094%

938 under 5000 0.000055%

3628 over 5000 0.00021%

So 99.9905% of the time the bet amount will never reach 1000 (which is my experience).

I wonder how much I need to be worried about the other 0.0009487200496964% of the time...

Having a bankroll of 5000 units would work better than a two pairs of depends on a 120 year old.

If I really want to analyze this, I would output the 3500+ games that produced those larger bets and analyze them for characteristics that can be recognized ahead of time and are sufficiently rare so as to allow a profit if we stop out when seeing them.

Then you could combine this progression with Kavouras bet,what do you think?

You know I have thought seriously about it but your comment just sparked that interest once again. The reason why I thought it would be so great is that the Kav has a 54% chance which is much better than red/black.

Here is the problem though. With the Fisher you have a 1:1 bet and risk. With the Kav you have some bets lower and some bets higher and another problem is that the splits only have a 25% chance of hitting per spin and that's the only bet that really sets things straight versus the -8 assaults that you get hit with.

What I have discovered is that its just better to watch your running balance instead of some symbol of your losses, but now I don't even care about my balance, the only thing I care about is how long has it been since a 10 payout hit & how many VSL's have there been because that's how I am going to first, stay alive, and second, make my money.

The bankroll and the hit chance are no arguments in a disputation about systems.A two dozen bet has a larger hit chance than the Kav bet!!A bet on Red or Black needs one unit. A bet on a 10 figur event asks also one unit.

Man, I'm kind of excited! I am outputting the betting results to Fisher.txt...

Can wait to start analyzing this data!

Maybe the Fisher can be made to be completely safe & profitable!

There were some guys on the net that had 2000 unit bank balances blown through very quickly but I am pretty sure that was caused by Blackthorne and his terrible "Mini-Martingale" method in Fisher II (which should be avoided like the plague).

oooooo toast is up!

Attached is a sample of all approximately 16,750 betting histories from all games that had a bet amount of 1000 units or more. Fishers.txt is only the games that had a bet amount of 5000 or more (approx. 3500 games).

I think the key is in the first 20 bets, sometimes there is an elongated string of 1's but if not, just about every time there will be an elongated series of 3's or 4's with several misses like 4 or more in a row. This will almost every time occur in the first 20 bets before one of these 5000+ explosions. The question is though, how much does this happen in the normal games and actually get resolved and how do we tell the difference between the two types of games; the reason that's important is because the goal is to never stop out of a profitable game and just avoid the bad explosions.

I need to figure out a concrete way of analyzing this data; I think dipping into it to count certain events and generate statistics is the way to go...

The bankroll and the hit chance are no arguments in a disputation about systems.A two dozen bet has a larger hit chance than the Kav bet!!A bet on Red or Black needs one unit. A bet on a 10 figur event asks also one unit.

The point is that a single bet with the Fisher creates a deficit of one unit but with the Kav, 8 units. That DRASTICALLY increases the incline of bet amounts required to remain profitable and directly relates to bankroll because the required bankroll goes up when the bet amounts go up. Also, hit chances ARE a part of the discussion because every time you raise in the Fisher you have a VERY significant chance of hitting your bet for a 3:1 profit but this isn't the same with the Kav where over half the time you will only make a profit of 1 or 4 units which won't have that same "3:1" effect.

Obviously, that's not to say that the Kav is in some way bad but that the two betting systems are not compatible/comparable/merge-able.